John 6 and what Jesus was saying to his disciples

You know, Dave, Enoch was also assumed into Heaven...why aren't you focusing on him as the real Jesus?

 

Actually my grandmother (may she rest in peace) lived so far away from us that she had very little influence on my upbringing compared to my ‘grandmother of choice’, a lovely neighbour who happens to be a devout Catholic (though maybe not so devout from your stringent point of view). So what you perceive as a lack of objectivity may have more to do with the kind of Catholics I associate with, most of whom are far more critical of their Churches structures than you are: http://www.we-are-church.org/int/statements/manifesto.html

Thanks for the link. Following up on the footnote to “LUMEN GENTIUM” I got a better understanding of what exactly you might mean by “source and summit”. However differently we may view the Eucharist’s proper celebration we probably both agree that what it stands for, Christ’s self-sacrifice on the cross for our salvation, is indeed the centerpiece of our faith.

You didn’t. I did, because historically it is rather obvious that it did. The title “Pontifex Maximus” was once held by Roman Emperors.

Well, I still can’t follow your ‘modelled-after-the-Mosaic-system’-argumentation. But while there are surely very many hard-working little parish-priests, who do indeed act as servants to their flock, the Catholics I mentioned above are under the impression that those who are on the top of the hierarchy do indeed tend to lord authority over them rather than serve them.

:


However you like to phrase it: our Churches share common history.

That’s well possible.

Church hierarchy and the Catholic Churches claim to sole representation enter the discussion where the Catholic Church tries to force its interpretation of John 6 on all believers, excludes people who may question this interpretation from the Lord’s supper or who for other reasons have fallen from the Churches grace, and punishes Catholic Priests whose Christian conscience didn’t allow them not to invite other Christians to the eucharist.
Mind you not so long ago there were times when Lutheran and reformed Protestant Churches would not celebrate the Eucharist together due to their different interpretations. They’ve since managed to overcome this separation and happily celebrate communion together while respecting each believers own ways of feeling the presence of Christ in this celebration. So I still have hope that one day all Christians can overcome their reservations against inviting each other to break the bread of the Eucharist together in the name of Christ, who is Lord over all of us.

 

I am absolutely willing to discuss it from a Historical/Grammatical hermeneutic--in fact, if you'll reference my OP, that's the basis of the questions. The attacks on the authority of the Church's interpretation are ancillary. I believe the Scripture speaks for itself in John 6--and the Catholic Church's teaching on it, just lines up with what is easily seen in a strictly literary historical reading of the text. Come at the text objectively and see what analysis of the grammatical and linguistic structures say and make your determination of the veracity of the argument that he meant LITERALLY to eat and drink his Flesh and Blood. That's all I am asking, and all I have been asking--THAT is and has been the point of this thread.

 

Children also "feel" like their parents "lord" over them--but having 6 children myself, I can assure you, I serve. Students often "feel" their teachers are "lording" their authority over them--but being a teacher, I can assure you, I serve. People "feel" all kinds of things--it doesn't mean it's true. Granted, there are crappy parents and crappy teachers--also, there are crappy people in authority in the Church hierarchy. It is not THE CHURCH, it is some people in it, and those few are not representative of the entirety of the Church, though they certainly cause scandal by giving doubters ammo.

 

Didnt realize I was avoiding a question---you know, Fel, I'm NEVER at a loss for words!

But you must have ignored my previous post that was a response to a part of your question:

But looking at the scriptures that support:

Romans 8:14

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.


Galatians 5:18

18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.


John 16:13

13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth;

Using the tools that I have previously mentioned in discernment, and multiple scriptures saying that following the Spirit of God as a son, not seeking my own, will make evident the doctrines of demons/Devil etc. and exposed by the leading of the Spirit.

I may speak boldly concerning these things, but that is a product of the Spirit of God, not my own self-seeking desires......My goal is to obey the scripture with the advice given by Paul to Timothy:

2 Timothy 2:15

Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

I'm off to watch the NFL Pre game/Championships; and btw, it's obvious who God supported in the BCS championship:

Alabama 42 (Won) [Southern, evangelical Protestants]
Notre Dame 14 (Lost) [Catholic backed]

I rest my case......

 

Was Enoch Taken to Heaven?





Some people believe Genesis 5:24
and Hebrews 11:5
declare that God took Enoch to heaven. But is that what these verses say?

Genesis 5:24
tells us that "Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him." Hebrews 11:5
adds: "By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, 'and was not found, because God had taken him'; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God."

Some erroneously jump to the conclusion that Enoch was taken up into heaven, but notice the Bible nowhere says this. It simply says that God "took him." It does not specify where he was taken.


http://www.ucg.org/booklet/heaven-a...ven-gods-reward-righteous/was-enoch-taken-he/


I have a different understanding in regard to what happened with Enoch.
Nevertheless, the way I see Elijah in 800BC is similar to the way I see Jesus indwelled by the Spirit of Truth in 32AD.

In my view, Elijah was a mere son-of-man who like Jesus, was possessed by the Spirit of Truth which is in the Kingdom within us all.
That spirit of Truth existed before Abraham, hence before Elijah, and likewise, before Jesus.

- - - Updated - - -

Was Enoch Taken to Heaven?





Some people believe Genesis 5:24
and Hebrews 11:5
declare that God took Enoch to heaven. But is that what these verses say?

Genesis 5:24
tells us that "Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him." Hebrews 11:5
adds: "By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, 'and was not found, because God had taken him'; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God."

Some erroneously jump to the conclusion that Enoch was taken up into heaven, but notice the Bible nowhere says this. It simply says that God "took him." It does not specify where he was taken.


http://www.ucg.org/booklet/heaven-and-hell-what-does-bible-really-teach/heaven-gods-reward-righteous/was-enoch-taken-he/


I have a different understanding in regard to what happened with Enoch.
Nevertheless, the way I see Elijah in 800BC is similar to the way I see Jesus indwelled by the Spirit of Truth in 32AD.

In my view, Elijah was a mere son-of-man who like Jesus, was possessed by the Spirit of Truth which is in the Kingdom within us all.
That spirit of Truth existed before Abraham, hence before Elijah, and likewise, before Jesus.

 

How so... how did you get that from this point I made below:

In 32AD we read that the manna that comes down is this immortal Elijah and a manna which is then different from that in the case of Moses:


32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.


?

Elijah is the Christ is the son-of-God.

 

Let me try this one last time:

Jesus only came against one group of ppl during His ministry, the Pharisees, who were the 'legalists' of their time and were continually trying to trap Him with the Law. But Jesus did not come against the sinner, as the adulteress being stoned, but offered her 'Grace,' just as with the woman at the well with several husbands.

Ergo, Jesus was a Gracist and NOT a legalist!

And, we as NT believers:

Galatians 5:18
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

Romans 8:2
because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.

John 8:36
So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

You need to get beyond 'sin consciousness' (walking according to the Law) and walk in that freedom, that He purchased for you!! As:

Galatians 5:16
So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature


And we do not need a 'middle man' (one to buffet us or grant us absolution, etc) between us and God:

1 John 2:1 .
My dear children, I am writing this to you so that you will not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate who pleads our case before the Father. He is Jesus Christ, the one who is truly righteous.

And the 5-fold ministry includes 'shepherds or pastors,' 'overseers' but NOT Priests (as in lieu of or as over-lords). If you so desire to call them 'Fathers' (which I believe would be OK if used as Paul did to Timothy being his mentor), look at them and delegate them as 'over seers' and shepherds---NOT priests between you & God!!

And you were incorrect when stating to Juno that the Mosaic priests were 'servants,' but in fact they 'lorded' their position over the ppl and separated themselves

And I can see Juno's frustration when dealing with a legalist who is steeped in the doctrines of men, one who chooses to remain in prison as being self-imposed, and refuses to walk in the freedom by which Christ Jesus paid the price. Just as ripping the veil in the temple in two @ the crucifixion, and no longer separating man from God thru priestly wrappings. All the old has past away, being fulfilled by the righteous Christ.

Keep this post and maybe some day when you get a glimpse of the freedom we have in Christ you may experience a 'spiritual Aha!" with your eyes being opened and walk in that new creature in Christ Jesus, and not holding to the old Law and remaining in bondage.....dont know what else I can say, but walking in the newness of your salvation is up to you...


I'm off to enjoy my freedom in Christ today........c u down the road....OD

 

To me, this is evidence you need a teacher. You are very hard headed and ignore things that contradict your preconceived ideas--what you WANT to believe--about people, about certain faiths. For example: you repeatedly have said that I am a "legalist"--that Catholicism is "legalist." It's simply not true. I have even expressed clearly that Salvation is through God's grace TO YOU in THIS VERY thread:

.

More info on Catholic teaching concerning grace.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm

 

Jesus is both and all a legalist and graciest, remember God gave Moses the Ten Commandments so that there will be a legal basis for Moses to to know how to rule and lead the Jews and with that Ten Commandments goes hand in hand with salvation. The Pharisees were very much against Jesus no matter how much truthful and factual Jesus has proof himself to them mainly the Pharisees refuse to accept him because the Pharisees were interested only on earthly things the spiritually part are just a means for the material. The Pharisees refuse to accept Jesus message that the Kingdom of God, salvation, and redemption is not about the empire of Israel but about the human soul. The Pharisees in fact Judaism one important criteria for the messiah is that he will restore the empire of Israel in other words Israel will rule the world, Israel will become the super power and all nations will submit to it this is what Jesus tried to explain to the Pharisees that they were wrong.

Up to now, Judaism can not refute the resurrection of Jesus Christ at the same time they just turn a blind eye to the fact that Jesus resurrected, so they started to change their strategy they started to go after the spirit of Jesus by flooding the public with all kinds of false stories and claims about Jesus not Son of God and very unfortunately many people picked it up most notable man name Mohammed that started the greatest threat to Christ and that is in another thread.

 

I never said we didnt need teachers..for I am one! Not only as a layman but also as part of my calling, not to mention having the credentials of a Bible College (an Independent Evangelical college w/o any denominational labeling). You keep grinding this vain ax for some reason!

Again The 10 Commandments are obsolete, but not in pointing out sin, but obsolete in being used to judge the righteous having the Righteousness of God in Christ Jesus, the gift given to 'us.' Talked about extensively in the Book to the Romans.

And the 10 Commandments were 'Thou shalt not's" where Jesus gave us 2 new commandments, "Thou shall's....love God and love thy neighbor." OT Law vs. NT Grace....

We judge ourselves and confess any sins, and He cleanses us...by His grace.

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness

NOTE: I feel like I'm tryng to explain to a N. Korean citizen who has been isolated & brainwashed by 'the State' what living in freedom is as opposed to just living....!!

 

No, Jesus walked as an OT Jew but was not an outward 'legalist,' as He also honored the Temple altho the ark of Moses was not in it. For He was the real Temple..."destroy this temple and I will raise it up in 3 days."

ex. of Legalism as talked about in the NT:

Matthew 23:23
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness.

Matthew 15:8
"'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.

 

It seems you feel that way with a lot of people...perhaps it's you. You contradict yourself in overdrive. Your piece of paper from a college does not imbue your "teachings" with grace--ANOTHER contradiction.

 

That is another good observation which is identical to what made the universal Golden Rule (found in every religion) so different from what Christ taught.

Christ was pro-active in th case of the 10 commandments as he was in regard to tell men to love their enemies, because to love their brothers and neighbors was hardly unique from what the publicans already were doing everywhere.




Matt. 5:44: (New Testament)
But I say unto you, Do Love your enemies,

(1) Lev. 19:18 (Torah)
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

(2) Judaiam: (Talmud; Shab. 31a)
"What is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellow man: this is the whole Law; the rest is mere commentary" (Hillel said)

(3) Islam: (Sunnah)
No one of you is believer until he desires for his brother that which he deires for himself.

(4) Brahmanism: (Mahabharata 5:1517)
This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause pain if done to you.

(5) Buddhism: (Udana-Varga 5;1
Hurt not others in ways you yourself would find hurtful.

(6) Confusianism: (Analects 15:23)
Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness:
Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you.

(7) Taoism: Tai Shang Kan Ying Pien
Regard your neighbor's gain as your gain and your neighborÕs loss as your loss.

( Zoroastrianism: (Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5)
That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself.


Hillel said: "What is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellow man: this is the whole Law; the rest is mere commentary"

 

I take issue with the idea that we are discussing Jesus rather than the Christ, son-of-God.

1) My argument asserts that Jesus was the son-of-man who became indwelled with the spirit which came down from heaven when john baptized him.
That spirit was the son-of-God.

On othe threads the idea of body and Mind has been discussed, and I refer to that idea again now.

The son-of man, Jesus, was also the traditionally expected messiah ben Joseph, the suffeing messiah who was beated and crucified.
That occurred just AFTER the transfiguration, when Jesus morphed BACK from the Christ, i.e.; the Elijah who left him to join Moses.

Jesus, the man, suffered death, not God nor his son, the Elijah, both of whom are immortals

Jesus died and was resurrected back to life, in the cave of his tomb by two angelic looking beings who must have been Moses and Elijah..


2) With this argument set down above, let's consider exactly whatthe Jews expected from the messiah ben Jospeh who was the suffering messiah of Is 53:


http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5849-eschatology


The Messiah will furthermore win the heathen by the spirit of wisdom and righteousness which rests upon him (Sibyllines, iii. 780; Test. Patr., Levi, 18; Judah, 24; Targ. Yer. to Gen. xlix. 12 and Isa. xli. 1).

He will teach the nations the Noachian laws of humanity, (i.e.; exempting the Gentile converts from the 613 Laws and rituals)

...and he would make all men disciples of the Lord (Midr. Teh. xxi.).

The wonders (Miracles) of the time of Moses will be repeated on a larger scale in the time of the Messiah (Mek., Beshallaḥ, Shirah, 8, after Micah vii. 15; comp. Hosea ii. 17; Targ.; Tan., Bo, ed. Buber, 6).

What Moses, the first redeemer, did is typical of what the Messiah as the last redeemer will do (Eccl. R. i. 9). The redemption will be in the same month of Nisan, (the time of the Passover seders), and in the same night, (Luke 24:21), (Mek., Bo, 14); the same pillar of cloud will lead Israel (Philo, "De Execrationibus," 8; Targ. Yer. to Isa. xxxv. 10):

... the redeemer will ride on an ass (Zech. ix. 9; comp. Ex. iv. 20);

... manna, (John 6) will again be sent down from heaven (Ps. lxxii. 16; comp. Ps. lxxviii. 24; Syriac Apoc. Baruch, xxix. ;
... manna, (John 6) will again be sent down from heaven (Ps. lxxii. 16; comp. Ps. lxxviii. 24; Syriac Apoc. Baruch, xxix. ;
... manna, (John 6) will again be sent down from heaven (Ps. lxxii. 16; comp. Ps. lxxviii. 24; Syriac Apoc. Baruch, xxix. ;

Like Moses, the Messiah will disappear for "40 days and 40 nights" days after his appearance [Matthew 4:2 ], (that appearamce taking place the day before when he was baptized by John), (Pesiḥ. R. 15; Pesiḥ. v. 49b, after Hosea v. 15).

...and the Song of Moses be replaced by another song, (The Gospels) (Mek., Beshallaḥ, Shirah, 1; Rev. xv. 3).

But, like Moses, the Messiah will die (II Esd. l.c.);
...the opinion that the Messiah will not taste death (Midr. Teh. lxxii. 17) seems to be of later origin, and will be discussed in connection with the account of the Messiah from the tribe of Joseph or Ephraim

 

Yep.... Now I see what John. was on about.

yeah....God wants His Salvation an impenetrable secret that we're all befuddled about. I don't buy it.

 

Actually I doubt that you are really willing to discuss John 6 from a historical, grammatical and hermeneutic point of view. The way in which you offhandedly dismissed people’s valid arguments against transubstantiation indicates that transubstantiation is a precious article of faith to you in a realm where the logic of critical exegesis can’t reach you. Seeing that concerning the Roman Catholic Church you seem to follow the premise “To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it” (Ignatius of Loyola) I don’t expect you to change your views just upon what are objectively the better arguments.
So why should I bother repeating these arguments or adding to them? I deem your literal understanding of certain phrasings in John 6 wrong, but I think it’s a misinterpretation that in itself is pretty harmless. If transubstantiation gives you the “sign” you need for your faith and symbolism is the “wisdom” I need for mine, so be it. What counts for me is that we both believe in the hard teaching of the “message of the cross” (1. Cor. 1) : that Jesus Christ was sent from heaven and gave His blood for our salvation. Neither you nor me walked away from that teaching and we both feel spiritually close to Christ when we celebrate the Eucharist with our fellow-Christians.

Note that Jesus spoke to His disciples - so in your thinking the first in line of the apostolic succession - when He told them to become children themselves. He doesn’t say: educate others that ought to be like children. Also He clearly says that there’s but one teacher, Himself, and nobody else is to call themselves a teacher. (Nothing against the teaching profession here, that’s a different matter )

I agree with you in these two points: there are crappy people in authority in the Church hierarchy and these people are not representative of THE CHURCH. THE CHURCH are you, me and everybody who believes in Christ. CHURCH begins when two or three of us gather in His name.

 

No we don't read that. It aint a claim found in scripture.

Your whole thing is circular logic where you have to accept that Elijah is Christ in order to prove that Elijah is Christ.

It's a bare assertion.

 

Obviously you want to just spit at Catholicism and you don't want to talk about John 6. So be it. I understand that it is " a hard saying."

 

1 Timothy 1:9
We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,

Romans 3:20
For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

2 Corinthians 5:21
For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could become the righteousness of God through Christ.

Romans 3:22
This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.


Father OverDrive [the backward collar shud strengthen my words, huh?!]

 

*Sigh* If I just wanted to ‘spit at Catholicism’ in general and at your faith in transubstantiation specifically I would have hardly tried to keep my analysis of John 6 to what I perceive to be the common ground between all Christians.

But if you insist I’ll point you again to the point in which Jesus explains His teaching in a part of the text that you so conveniently left out in your OP’s quotation. John 6,63:
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.“

The Spirit that is to be found in the words of Jesus is the “true flesh” that ought to nourish us. No transubstantiation required!

In the bits you left out it also becomes obvious what’s the "hard saying" here, the central point of the conflict between traditional Jews and Christian Jews that were just kicked out of the synagogues shortly before the gospel of John was written:

41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

Later Jesus explains: 61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!

The whole text announces the last supper, the crucifixion and the ascension of Christ. The Messiah being crucified is the other hard teaching as I pointed out to you by referring to 1. Corinthians 1:

22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

 

But neither are you.

You ignore that Christ came down from heaven when Jesus was baptized, and immediately thereafter, the Christ went into the wilderness for "40 days and 40 nights," as had the Elijah 800 years before him.

Then this Christ re-lived the same experiences and did the same miracles as had Elijah 800 year before.

Seven times in John 6, Jesus is said to have come down from heaven where only Elijah had gone up before.



John 1:21
And they asked him, (John the Baptist), What then? Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

 

Do you think in verse 63 that He meant one and the same flesh he was talking about repeatedly in the prior verses of John 6? Think about that a moment.

Do you agree in all the other areas of John 6 "flesh" meant Jesus? If not, what was the "flesh" that he referred to and that he said must be eaten to have eternal life? I'm pretty sure, you'll say--yes--he meant his real flesh, but he didn't mean to eat it, rather his flesh offered at the Sacrifice of the cross.

If I've got that wrong, please correct me and tell me what flesh Jesus was referring to in all of John 6 up to verse 63. I'm going to continue assuming you agree that Jesus was talking about Himself as the Sacrifice in all of John 6.

See...but if that is what you think Jesus is saying, then YOUR interpretation of “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.“ suggests that Jesus is saying his Sacrifice on the cross--His Flesh-- "counts for nothing."

I don't think that's what you want to suggest--perhaps I'm wrong, maybe it is something you would say--I really can't tell anymore with you.




Bottom line--in BOTH our interpretations of John 6, verse 63's reference to "flesh" means something different than it did in the rest of John 6.




Indeed--the words Jesus speaks ARE spirit and life--he said to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Again--either way you read "flesh" in all of John 6 except 63, you STILL have to read 63 to mean this physical life we live, NOT Christ's flesh or his Sacrifice.

Yes. And what is the point of the Last Supper? Why did Jesus do that?
22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

Sooooooo...is the Communion celebration that we do as Christians......Just something to do? I thought you just said we don't need a sign...but wait...the Last Supper ritual is indeed a sign--whether you believe in Transubstantiation or not!

The arguments you THINK counter my interpretation of John 6 serve to also counter all mainstream Christian perspectives if you apply the reasoning equally. You argue against the point you wish to make! Your premise is self-contradictory...and therefore....not correct. This does not prove my position correct, but at least my interpretation is not inherently self-contradicting

 

Jesus is more than just the OT, he is the Messiah and Son of God, Jesus reveal to us what the OT is real all about it is to live a legal earthly life in order to be able to enter Heaven what is the legal orderly life; charity, benevolence, courage, truth and most of all believe in Him.....and in the end he will come again to judge us all how will he judge us, base on how legally we live our lives here on earth.

 

Elijah was a true prophet and servant of God, Jesus Christ is the God and he confirm the way of life of Elijah.
John 1:21
And they asked him, (John the Baptist), What then? Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

It is very clear Jesus is not Elijah nor is he a prophet because Jesus is Son of God. Why are there people insisting Jesus is somebody else because they want to distort the truth.